Posts Tagged ‘Peter Dunne’

Weekend Revelations #2 – Michelle Boag has a whinge

2 November 2015 3 comments


National Party staying strong on crime


From TVNZ’s Q+A, on 25 October 2015,


Q+A - 25 october 2015 - police - michelle boag - simon dallow


The Q+A panel were ostensibly discussing out-going Police Association President, Greg O’Connor’s persistent calls to arm the New Zealand police. At one point, former National Party president, Michelle Boag offered her views on policing-techniques in this country;


Michelle Boag: “…But, it’s, it’s a bit of a shame, that for most of us, certainly for me personally, the, the only direct engagement I end up with Police is when they stop me as they did yesterday morning when I was driving to golf at seven o’clock in the morning for a random breath test. Right, so that’s an instant confrontational thing. And, er, it just makes you think, ‘oh god, here they are, enforcing’ all the time-”

Simon Dallow: “So were you more annoyed or were you more pleased that society is being protected here?

Boag: “Er, well, I was annoyed because I haven’t had a drink for twenty years. And every time I get stopped on the way to golf early on a Saturday morning, I think, it’s a complete waste of your time. However, I know, if rather than saying my name and address, I say, ‘Listen, I don’t drink, you’re never going to catch me’, that I’ll probably get hauled up for, y’know, talking back to a policeman.

It should not be lost on most politically conscious folk that one of National’s strongest, most agressively promoted tenet is that of “Law and Order”. One of it’s seven main election billboards, for the 2011 election, was the image at the top of the page.

National’s political history is replete with passing laws empowering the police and spy organisations SIS and GCSB. (The GCSB was set up under National, under then-Prime Minister Robert Muldoon’s leadership.)

Since 2008, National has passed the following laws;

Search and Surveillance Act 2012

Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act 2013

Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Act 2013

Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill

The GCSB’s mandate was changed two years ago to permit it to spy on New Zealanders.

This, despite protests from New Zealanders up and down the country, opposed to extending the powers of the State into our lives. One wonders if Michelle Boag attended any of the anti-GCSB protests that’s been held around the country?

This is not the first time that a National Party apparatchik has been caught up in the new, murky atmosphere of surveillance, that is now part of our lives. In 2013, then-National Party president Peter Goodfellow, complained of being under covert surveillance by a private investigator;




I blogged on the issue here: National Party president complains of covert filming.

And who can forget the outrageously delicious irony of National’s coalition partner, Peter Dunne, having his emails pinched by Parliamentary Services and passed on to the Prime Minister’s Department.;




Then-Fairfax journalist, Andrea Vance, also had her Parliamentary  phone and swipe-card records passed on to the PM’s Department (which was “assisting” the Thorn Inquiry), as an investigation was held into the identity of the secret source who leaked Vance a confidential report into the GCSB.

The irony is that even as Peter Dunne was rearing up and braying in self-righteous indignation at the invasion of his privacy, two and a half weeks later, he voted with National in the Third and final reading of the Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill (now an Act) which passed it into law.

Now everyone in New Zealand could have their privacy invaded.

I blogged on the issue here: Parliamentary spies and games – some bad numbers

When governments pass laws extending the powers of the State’s security organisations, and increase surveillance capabilities of spy agencies, then it has created a fertile environment where privacy is no longer as sacrosanct  as it once was. Whether it be police stopping motorists at random to detect potential drunk drivers*;  a private investigator recording a conversation; or one government agency passing private emails on to another; or covert surveillance on potentially all New Zealanders,  a new norm has been created.

Michelle Boag may be indignant at being stopped on her way to her golf on a Saturday morning – but her right to unimpeded travel on our roads was extinguished a long time ago. The State now has the right to stop her as, when, and however, it’s security agencies ‘deem necessary’.

She may even have her phone and internet tapped, should she ever run foul of a future government.

All perfectly legal.

I love it when National’s quasi-fascistic law and order policies eventually catch up with it’s own supporters.

Thank you, Lady Karma.


"We are from the government we are here to help. - Ruatoki, 15 October 2007

    “We are from the government, we are here to help.” – Ruatoki, 15 October 2007


* Footnote:
It should be noted that this blogger has no problem with random breath-testing conducted by Police. Whilst this country is awash with cheap, easily-available booze; and whilst New Zealanders refuse to address our penchant for binge-drinking, random breath testing is one of the few means we have to protect ourselves and our families from liquored-up drivers. Michelle Boag needs to get over her preciousness and sense of entitlement in this regard. The next drink driver the police catch could be one  on her road, as she drives to her golfing rendezvous.





TVNZ Q+A:  Panel on arming the Police

Wikipedia: Government Communications Security Bureau

Fairfax media: National Party boss alleges covert filming

Fairfax Media:  Emails given to inquiry

Parliament: Government Communications Security Bureau Amendment Bill

Previous related blogposts

Parliamentary spies and games – some bad numbers

National Party president complains of covert filming – oh the rich irony!

It is 1984. It is ALWAYS 1984

National’s disdain for democracy and dissent

Those who love Big Brother

Welcome to new glorious People’s Republic of New Zealand

From the Horses mouth

Today’s irony was brought to you courtesy of former ACT MP and Govt Minister, Rodney Hide






This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 28 Octobr 2015.



= fs =

National’s Ohariu candidate admits contact by Simon Lusk

6 September 2014 2 comments


brett hudson - simon lusk - ohariu candidate - national


Wellington, NZ, 31  August – At a meet-the-candidates public meeting in the Rongotai Electorate, National’s Ohariu candidate, Brett Hudson, confirmed that he had been approached by “a mate”, who passed on a message from  National Party operative, Simon Lusk.

Simon Lusk is a far right-wing apparatchik who runs a private, self-styled “candidates school” for potential National Party candidates. Amongst those National MPs linked to Lusk are Taupo MP Louise Upston, Maungakiekie MP Sam Lotu-Iiga, Napier MP Chris Tremain, Rodney MP Mark Mitchell and former list MP Aaron Gilmore. Disgraced Minister, Judith Collins, is also an  associate of  Simon Lusk.

The media reported that some National Party insiders were so concerned by Lusk’s activities  that they leaked documents to the media in 2012, and the following year. At least one senior Minister, Michael Woodhouse, discussed his growing unease with National’s president, Peter Goodfellow .

Brett Hudson

On Sunday, this blogger put a direct question to National’s Ohariu candidate, Brett Hudson, enquiring  if he has had any recent contact with Simon Lusk; Lusk’s so-called “college for candidates”; Cameron Slater, or any of their associates.

Hudson confirmed that he had been approached, explaining that he had been offered Simon Lusk’s services through a third party,

“I have [had an] indirect approach. Someone else had said that, that gentleman had said if your mate wants to get involved, let me know. And I turned it down.”

When I enquired who that “someone else” had been, Hudson refused to disclose the name.

“I’m not going to name who it was, it’s not relevant to this situation.”

Hudson insisted,

“They just said, I’ve had a message from this guy Lusk, who sez if your mate is interested let me know. Tell him to get in touch.”

Hudson stated categorically that the un-named person who approached him was not National Party parliamentary staffer, Jason Ede.

When questioned further, Hudson stated,

“I’ve no contact with Slater or Lusk. I have no intention to never, nor would ever consider entering their scheme.

So I made my own message, which I think it was Facebook, I can’t recall exactly, just went to Lusk, and don’t want to participate.”

Upon further questioning, Hudson confirmed that he contacted Lusk directly to decline the offer,

“It was just a message to say I’m not interested… so I’m not involved, I’ve had no conversations.”

When I asked when this exchange took place, Hudson was vague, and said,

“I can’t recall, last year probably. Or even… probably… could’ve been late 2012. I don’t know. Honestly, ‘cos I’ve no intention of being involved.”

I asked when he was selected as a candidate and Hudson replied,

“End of April this year.”

I asked,

“End of April this year? So why would he have contacted you… in 2012?”

Hudson replied,

“Because if he wanted people to join his college, which as I understand it, and I don’t know, but it would be a paid for thing, then maybe he was touting for business, I don’t know.”

Hudson was emphatic when he denied all involvement with Lusk;

“And also I think the message was, if your mate was interested then he could contact me. And I said I’m not interested.”

Despite repeated enquiries,  he refused to name who the “mate” was who acted as a go-between him and Lusk.

Interestingly, Hudson joined Facebook on 5 May 2011, so why would Lusk have offered his services through a so-called third party, rather than FB messaging Hudson directly?

Especially when Brett Hudson is one of  Simon Lusk’s FB friends;


Lusk - Hudson facebook friends


Lusk does not appear on Brett Hudson’s FB friends list.

If Hudson was approached by a “third party”, there are two well-known associates of Simon Lusk who appear on Brett Hudson’s Facebook Friends list; right-wing lawyer Jordan Williams, and blogger, David Farrar;


jordan williams -facebook - simon lusk - Brett hudson - ohariu



david farrar -facebook - simon lusk - Brett hudson - ohariu


Chris Finlayson

At another public meeting in Rongotai, on the same day, National’s Treaty Negotiations Minister and Attornery General, Chris Finlayson was also asked what dealings, if any, he had had with Simon Lusk or Cameron Slater.

At this point, as I put the question to Finlayson, National Party supporters attempted to shout me down. Nearly all middle-aged men and women, their behaviour was mob-like, reminding me of the “F**k John Key” Youtube video we have seen recently,  and attempted to stop me from questioning the Minister.  They took particular exception to a hand-held voice-recorder in my hand. One particularly observant older National supporter yelled, with a hint of panic,

“He’s got a recorder! He’s got a recorder!”

I turned to the greying-haired lady and responded,

“Why yes, so it is.”

The chair of the meeting felt the need to address the matter and called for a voice “vote” on whether or not I should record Finlayson’s response to my question. The loud vocal braying from the National Party supporters would have done a village mob proud, with one National supporter sitting directly behind me adding,

“Sit down! Not relevant!”

At the Chair’s request, I turned my recorder off and said,

“But I will put the question, as it’s an important election issue.”

Minister Finlayson responded (with far more grace than his supporters, I might add). The following notes were jotted contemporaneously,

“No, [I] haven’t been contacted by them. I haven’t read the book. But all I know is I think they called me a tosser who tried to speak latin.”

I thanked the minister, sat down,  and turned to the National Party supporter seated behind me,

“Are you a National or Conservative Party (he had cheered and clapped for several comments made by the Conservative candidate) supporter?”

Doesn’t matter, irrelevent,” he replied.

“Well, it is relevent. You’ve expressed strong views and I’d like to know where you’re coming from.”

“No, irrelevent, just like your question to Chris,” he said.

I replied, “it can’t be ‘irrelevent’, because it’s a major election issue.”

“Well,” he said with some smugness, “we’ll have to agree to disagree then, won’t we?”

I replied,

“Really? That didn’t stop you from trying to shut me down, did it?”

At the conclusion of the public question and answer session, I approached Chris Finlayson and introduced myself. I asked if he would go on record, to answer my question. The Minister seemed quite happy to do so, and added an interesting ‘aside’.

I asked,

“So you’ve never had no contact or anything with Simon Lusk or  Cameron Slater, say in the last year or so?”

Finlayson replied, without any hesitation,

“I’ve never had contact with them.”

He added,

“I suggest you ask the same question of Stuart Nash, the Labour candidate in Napier.”

When I asked why I should ask Nash that question, Finlayson refused to say why, and instead repeated that I should put the question to him.

Accordingly, I have put the question to  Stuart Nash via  Facebook messaging,

Kia ora Stuart,

I’m putting together a story for the Daily Blog, regarding Simon Lusk and Cameron Slater, and your name has come up in discussions with certain people. Can you confirm what dealings you have had with Simon Lusk (or his intermediary) , and what services he has offered you for your election campaign? Have you paid any money for any services he might offer, or has any amount been agreed on? Furthermore, what was the nature of the agreement and did it refer to the Mana-Internet Party? Also, are you aware of other Labour candidates who are currently in contact with Simon Lusk (or his intermediary, or Cameron Slater). I look forward to your responses on these questions, to shed some light on matters that have arisen.

The message was seen at 1.46am on 1 September, but no reply has been forthcoming.

Mr Nash, if you wish to reply and address the question, the opportunity is still open.

It is the contention of this blogger that Cameron Slater and his dealings are a matter of intense public interest. People who are putting themselves up for election to Parliament should have nothing to hide when it comes to disclosing what contacts they have had with controversial public figures and matters of considerable public interest.

I will continue to ask these questions, and noisy supporters of National (or Labour) would be well advised that attempting to shout down the truth does not serve their interests.





NZ Herald: National Party had high-level concerns over member’s influence

NZ Herald: National turns on hard right advisor

Fairfax media:  Seriously happy to upset the status quo

TVNZ News:  National Party selects Ohariu candidate

Facebook: Simon Lusk FB Page – Friends

NZ Parliament: Chris Finlayson

Previous related blogposts

Power Struggle in the National Party?!

David Farrar – Challenging Slater for Sultan of Sleaze?

National MP admits collusion with bosses to set up strike-breaking law!!

Other blogs

The Paepae: Simon Lusk in the headlines again!



20 september 2014 VOTE

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 2 September 2014



= fs =

Dunne won’t read ‘muck-raking’ Dirty Politics

2 September 2014 1 comment


peter dunne - dirty politics



Full story: Dunne won’t read ‘muck-raking’ Dirty Politics

Because as we all know, ignorance is such bliss. Eh, Mr Dunne?



= fs =

National under attack – defaults to Deflection #1


Labour forced our hand on timing - key



Blaming the Labour Party? Blaming a Party that is not in government, and has been out of office for five years?! How does that even begin to work as sounding plausible?!

This is a new “variant” on the three deflections that National defaults to when it scrambles to avoid taking responsibility for it’s botch-ups. Those three default-deflections are;

  1. Blame previous Labour government
  2. Release story on ‘welfare abuse’
  3. Blame Global Financial Crisis or similar overseas event

In this case blaming the previous Labour government won’t wash. Legal highs/psychoactive substances were barely known prior to 2008.

So it seems that blaming the current Labour Party will have to do instead.


The news-story on the RNZ page made reference to Key claiming “ cabinet decided last Tuesday on a ban but wanted to keep quiet about it to cut down on stockpiling by consumers“.

But listen to the actual interview and words used by  Dear Leader;

John Key: “Because the fortyone that we decided some time ago, in principle, we decided the Health Department made the wrong call in giving them a waiver. Now, we-“

Susie Ferguson: “And when did you decide this?”

John Key: “We decided that in Cabinet some while ago.”

Susie Ferguson: “Peter Dunne said it was agreed last Tuesday.”

John Key: “Yup, that’s some while ago…”

Since when   “some time ago” equate to last week?

Lying hound.




Radio NZ: Labour forced our hand on timing – Key

Radio NZ: PM defends timing of legal highs decision ( audio )

Previous related blogs

National under attack – defaults to Deflection #2



Peter Dunne

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 29 April 2014.



= fs =

Peter Dunne – willing seller & buyer

22 August 2013 2 comments


NZ spy agencies need urgent review

Source: Marlborough Express – NZ spy agencies need urgent review


Peter Dunne and John Key are knocking back a couple of 100 year old scotches from Dear Leader’s private stock. They’re both pissed, and Key looks at Dunne and asks,

“Peter, would you bend over my Prime Ministerial desk and let met shag you from behind, if I paid you a million bucks?”

Peter Dunne – knowing that Key can afford a million dollars from his “Uncle Scrooge” petty cash tin, and considering how useful that money would be for next year’s election campaign replies,

“Why, yes, I would, John.”

Key grins slyly and carries on,

“Peter, what if I paid you half a million? Would that still be ok with you for a bit of rear-rogering?”

Dunne is a bit deflated. Half a million is not as much as a full million… but still, it’s better than nothing to fund his campaign.

He replies,

“Sure, John. Half a million would be ok, I guess,” and stands up to undo his belt.

“What about fifty bucks?” asks Key, downing the last of his glass of $50K-per-bottle scotch.

Dunne, fuming, screams at him,

“What?! Fifty bucks?!?! What do you take me for?!!!”

Key cooly replies,

“Oh, I think we both know what you are. We’re just haggling for the price, now…”

(With apologies – I know it’s an old joke…)



= fs =

USA, Vietnam, Peter Dunne – Pot, Kettle.


US criticizes Vietnam new Internet control decree

Source: NZ Herald – US criticizes Vietnam new Internet control decree


The US Embassy in Vietnam goes on to state,

“Fundamental freedoms apply online just as they do offline,” the embassy said in a statement. “We are deeply concerned by the decree’s provisions that appear to limit the types of information individuals can share via personal social media accounts and on websites.”

Source: IBID

Yes, of course our American cuzzies want the Vietnamese people to allow ”  information individuals can share via personal social media accounts and on websites”.

Then their National Security Agency (NSA) and Britain’s GCHQ can mine that data via their PRISM,  XKeyscore, and god-only-knows what other systems are used to store data on citizens.


XKeyscore - NSA tool collects 'nearly everything a user does on the internet'

Source: The Guardian – XKeyscore: NSA tool collects ‘nearly everything a user does on the internet’


The government of Vietnam is right to be concerned with what it’s citizens may put online. With British and American spy agencies trawling the planet for information, it is now a matter of national security that nations protect themselves from this illegal spying.  The internet poses a real danger to victims of this rampant,  out-of-control spying.

The sheer hypocrisy of the US Embassy when it piously states that    “Fundamental freedoms apply online just as they do offline” is breath-taking in arrogance.

It’s like Big Brother throwing a tanty when someone refuses to share their personal information, thus thwarting the spooks who are patiently waiting to hoover up the data.

Meanwhile, the Opposition parties, led by the Greens, have succeeded in stalling the passing of the GCSB and Related Legislation Amendment Bill for two weeks.

Their ‘filibustering’ has successfully stalled the passing of the Bill, as this Radio NZ report explains,


Legislation covering the Government Communications Security Bureau won’t pass all the way through Parliament this week as had been hoped by the Government.

The bill is now in its committee stages, where MPs debate it clause by clause.  The opposition has employed delaying tactics since Question Time on Tuesday afternoon.  An urgent debate on the Fonterra contamination scare delayed the debate further.

The Government will have to wait at least two weeks to pass the controversial legislation.

Source: Radio NZ – GCSB bill won’t pass this week

This gives opponants to the GCSB and Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bills an opportunity to grow opposition and to educate the public what is at stake.

As for Peter Dunne, who is complaining about protesters targetting his home – my sympathy for him is zero.


Dunne lashes back at noisy protesters

Source: Dominion Post – Dunne lashes back at noisy protesters


Protester, Ariana Paretutanganui-Tamati is 100% quite right when she says that their presence is to  “to give him a taste of what it feels like to have your privacy intruded on“.

Mr Dunn doesn’t like being surveilled?

Neither do we.

Do the right thing, Mr Dunne – vote the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill and GCSB and Related Legislation Amendment Bill down.

It’s the decent thing to do.

You still have time.

Don’t be John Key’s errand boy.




What would George Orwell – author of ‘1984’ – have made of all this, I wonder?

This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 8 August 2013.




= fs =

The GCSB Act – some history…

4 August 2013 10 comments




New Zealand, 2003


From an excerpt from Hansards in Parliament, on 27 March 2003, when the original GCSB Bill was being debated;

“This is a good bill. I do not accept the criticism of those who speak against it, that somehow it means that information about people will be gathered improperly…”

Source: Hansards – Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Third Reading

Who said that?

Why, no other than this gentleman;


Peter Dunne

Peter Dunne


Ten years later after Dunne made that statement, it was revealed  that his faith in the GCSB was badly misplaced,


Illegal spying - 85 Kiwis watched - Fairfax Media - Andrea Vance - Kitteridge Report - 85 people spied on

Source: Fairfax Media – Illegal Spying: 85 Kiwis Watched


So in March 2003, Mr Dunne was adamant:  he did not accept criticism “that information about people will be gathered improperly”.

I think those 85 (actually 88) people – including Kim Dotcom – might have differing views on that point.

I wonder if Mr Dunne is also adamant about the current Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill and it’s “sister-legislation, the  Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Amendment Bill?

Will “information about people will be gathered improperly”?

What say you, Mr Dunne?



= fs =

Categories: The Body Politic Tags: ,

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,118 other followers